Phil 102 Argument Analysis

PHIL 102 Argument analysis I

Yifei Li

NetID: yifeili3

Premises:

1. It is always wrong to cause any animals with conscious suffer.

2. Torturing puppies bring suffer to puppies.

3. Torturing puppies is cruel.

4. Torturing puppies is wrong.(from 1, 2, 3)

5. Farm castrates pig without anesthesia and cut off its tail.

6. What the farm does causes animals suffer. (from 5)

7. Torturing puppies is as cruel as torturing other animals.

8. What the farm does is also wrong. (from 1, 6, 7)

9. It is wrong for anyone to own a farm that torture animals. (from 8)

10. There’s no difference between people torturing animals themselves and paying someone to do it.

11. paying farm to torture animals is wrong. (from 9, 10)

12. Purchasing meat from

farm is paying other money to produce meat.
13. Farm produce meat is the way of torturing animals.
14. Purchasing meat from farm is also a way to torture animals.(from 12, 13)
15. It is wrong to purchase meat from farm.(from 11, 14)

Conclusion:
There is no subtle distinction between people torturing puppies and purchasing meat from the factory.

Explanation:
In all premises, there are two major sub-conclusions that lead to the final conclusion.

The first sub-conclusion is that torturing puppies is wrong and the second sub-conclusion states that it is wrong to purchase meat from farm. All other premises are served to provide necessary support for these two sub-conclusions.

From the article, it can be inferred from the author that causing any animals being in great suffer and such behavior is wrong. Further, torturing puppies brings suffer to puppies and it is cruel and inhuman. Therefore, torturing puppies is obviously wrong.

Similarly, farm castrates pigs without anesthesia and cut off their tails, which therefore cause the animals suffer. Since farm cause animals suffer and torturing puppies is as cruel as torturing any other animals, what the farm does to animals is clearly wrong.

Hence owning a farm that does this sort of things to animals is wrong. Moreover, there’s no clear difference between someone doing something than paying other to do the same thing. So paying farm to torture animals is wrong. Also, because purchasing meat from farm is paying other money to produce meat and because farm produce meat in a way of torturing animals, purchasing meat from farm is also a way to torture animals, The article thereby reach its second sub-conclusion: it is wrong to purchase meat from

farm.

In all, the two sub-conclusion derives the final conclusion: There is no subtle distinction between people torturing puppies and purchasing meat from the factory.

From my point of view, the argument is unpersuasive. We can justify its validity by assuming all the premises are true. That is, if torturing puppies is wrong and purchasing meat is also wrong, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no difference between these two behaviors.
However, some premises of the argument are indeed implausible. We can easily reject Norcross’s idea by cracking one of the premises “There’s no difference between people torturing animals themselves and paying someone to do it.” When judging these two behaviors, the present of consciousness needs to be taken into account. That is, whenever someone tortures animals, he/she must do it intentionally. However, those consumers may not be aware of how the factory treats the animals. They will not think about what animals have gone through unless other people told them so. As soon as they think twice, they might stop purchasing meat. So the major distinction between someone torture animals themselves and paying other to do it is whether someone is aware of what he/she is doing. Therefore, the premises is implausible.
There is another point to object this argument. In the article, Norcross’s explains that
the torture to puppy is merely a mean to obtain “gustatory pleasure” (Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases, Page 2). However, purchasing meat from farm is an activity that is required for living. We can not live without obtain protein from meat while we can still be healthy without tasting chocolate. So killing animals, not necessarily torturing them, becomes an reasonable and inevitable method to ensure our basic demand for living, not an intended means to obtaining gustatory pleasure. For Fred, torturing puppy is intended as a means to obtain mental pleasure. So purchasing meat and torturing animals are not equivalent in this sense.

Reference:

Norcross, Alastair (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases. Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):229–245.